Organizations pursuing multiple, often competing goals typically struggle to build the resilience needed to sustain such hybridity. Drawing on the hybrid organizing literature, this study examines how organizations’ symbolic emphasis on dual social-business logics (i.e., high logic centrality) in their social media communication predicts their representational ties on social media and the subsequent communication of resilience enactment. Employing a multi-sourced research design, this study analyzed data from an online survey of 260 social enterprises (SEs) in Taiwan, alongside 3 years of their Facebook data during the COVID-19 pandemic. Findings showed that the display of high logic centrality on social media predicted the communication of resilience enactment both directly and indirectly through greater engagement in representational ties with other organizations. Moreover, the strength of the indirect relationship varied based on SEs’ perceived logic centrality in their overall operations. The researchers drew theoretical and methodological implications from the key findings.
AliI.BaltaM.PapadopoulosT. (2023). Social media platforms and social enterprise: Bibliometric analysis and systematic review. International Journal of Information Management, 69, Article 102510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2022.102510
2.
AndersonL. B.Jones-BodieA. (2023). Facing adversity together: Toward a genre of organization-stakeholder resilience discourse. Management Communication Quarterly, 37(1), 144–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/08933189221112045
3.
BattilanaJ.LeeM. (2014). Advancing research on hybrid organizing–Insights from the study of social enterprises. Academy of Management Annals, 8(1), 397–441. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2014.893615
4.
BattilanaJ.SengulM.PacheA. C.ModelJ. (2015). Harnessing productive tensions in hybrid organizations: The case of work integration social enterprises. Academy of Management Journal, 58(6), 1658–1685. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2013.0903
5.
Belair-GagnonV.LewisS. C.AgurC. (2020). Failure to launch: Competing institutional logics, intrapreneurship, and the case of chatbots. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 25(4), 291–306. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmaa008
6.
BergfeldA.PlagmannC.LutzE. (2021). Know your counterparts: The importance of wording for stakeholder communication in social franchise enterprises. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32(1), 104–119. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00289-4
7.
BesharovM. L.SmithW. K. (2014). Multiple institutional logics in organizations: Explaining their varied nature and implications. Academy of Management Review, 39(3), 364–381. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2011.0431
8.
BillietA.BruneelJ.DufaysF. (2025). Exit, voice, or both: Why organizations engage with stakeholders. Business & Society, 64(6), 1149–1184. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503231182612
9.
BiselR. S.RushK. A.RoederA. C. (2024). Professional caregivers’ communicative resilience and flourishing during the COVID-19 pandemic: When disruption lasts. International Journal of Business Communication, 61(4), 760–782. https://doi.org/10.1177/23294884241263556
BuzzanellP. M. (2018). Organizing resilience as adaptive-transformational tensions. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 46(1), 14–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2018.1426711
12.
CapoF.VaccaroA.BerroneP. (2024). Revitalizing urban places: How prosocial organizations acquire saliency in the eyes of resisting stakeholders. Journal of Business Ethics, 189(4), 655–675. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-023-05562-2
13.
ChadwickA. (2013). The hybrid media system: Politics and power. Oxford University Press.
14.
ChenX.HeY.WangL.XiongJ.JiangR. J. (2022). The legitimization process of social enterprises across development stages: Two case studies. Journal of Business Research, 148, 203–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.054
ChenY. W.KwitondaJ. C. (2021). Paradoxes of belonging, organizing, and agency: Integrating and differentiating divergent strategic logics in supported social enterprises. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 15(4), 310–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2021.1918129
17.
CorpleD. (2024). From human services to “justice enterprises”: Reframing the market-mission tension in us organizations serving survivors of commercial sexual exploitation. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 53(2), 348–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640231176797
18.
FitzgeraldT.ShepherdD. (2018). Emerging structures for social enterprises within nonprofits: An institutional logics perspective. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(3), 474–492. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018757024
19.
FuJ. S. (2024). Social-market hybridity in social ventures: Scale development and validation. Business & Society, 63(2), 452–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/00076503231167569
20.
FuJ. S.CooperK. R. (2025). Hybrid stakeholders and processes in social impact organizing: A constitutive approach to hybridity. Communication Theory. https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtaf027
21.
GaneshS.StohlC. (2021). Fluid hybridity: Organizational form and formlessness in the digital age. In LievrouwL.LoaderB. (Eds.), Handbook of digital media and communication (pp. 268–280). Routledge.
22.
HayesA. F. (2018). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
23.
HoustonJ. B.BuzzanellP. M. (2018). Communication and resilience: Concluding thoughts and key issues for future research. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 46(1), 26–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2018.1426691
24.
JarvisC. M.EddingtonS. M. (2021). Disentangling antifeminist paradoxes: Alternative organizing in antifeminist online spaces. Management Communication Quarterly, 35(1), 96–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318920972649
25.
KimM.DoerfelM. L. (2024). Engaged interorganizational networks and resilience in the humanitarian sector. Journal of Communication, 74(4), 299–309. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqae018
26.
KleinS.SchneiderS.SpiethP. (2021). How to stay on the road? A business model perspective on mission drift in social purpose organizations. Journal of Business Research, 125, 658–671. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.01.053
27.
KoW. W.LiuG. (2021). The transformation from traditional nonprofit organizations to social enterprises: An institutional entrepreneurship perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 171(1), 15–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04446-z
28.
KopanevaI. M.CheneyG. (2019). Organizational identity formation in alternative organizations: A study of three benefit corporations. Management Communication Quarterly, 33(4), 484–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318919858684
29.
KročilO.MüllerM.SchlossarekM. (2024). Making sense of social enterprises' crisis preparedness and development of composite index for its assessment. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 32(4), Article e12622. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12622
30.
LaiC.-H.FuJ. S. (2021). Humanitarian relief and development organizations’ stakeholder targeting communication on social media and beyond. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organization, 32(1), 120–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-020-00209-6
31.
LaiC.-H.YuP. (2022). How do public organizations communicate their alliances on Facebook and how does the public react? A longitudinal analysis. Public Relations Review, 48(1), Article 102144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2021.102144
32.
LiP. H.FuT. J.MaW. Y. (2020, April). Why attention? Analyze BiLSTM deficiency and its remedies in the case of NER. In Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Vol. 34, No. 05, pp. 8236–8244). https://doi.org/10.1609/aaai.v34i05.6338
33.
LiY.ShinJ.SunJ.KimH. M.QuY.YangA. (2021). Organizational sensemaking in tough times: The ecology of NGOs’ COVID-19 issue discourse communities on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 122, Article 106838. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2021.106838
34.
LinY. H.LinF. J.WangK. H. (2021). The effect of social mission on service quality and brand image. Journal of Business Research, 132, 744–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.10.054
35.
LitricoJ. B.BesharovM. L. (2019). Unpacking variation in hybrid organizational forms: Changing models of social enterprise among nonprofits, 2000–2013. Journal of Business Ethics, 159(2), 343–360. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-4047-3
MaktoufiR.O’ConnorA.ShumateM. (2020). Does the CSR message matter? Untangling the relationship between corporate–nonprofit partnerships, created fit messages, and activist evaluations. Management Communication Quarterly, 34(2), 188–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318919897059
38.
MalhotraA.WrightA. L.JarvisL. C. (2025). Hybridity in nonprofit organizations: Organizational perspectives on combining multiple logics. Journal of Business Ethics, 196, 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-024-05687-y
39.
MannM.ByunS. E.GinderW. (2021). B corps’ social media communications during the COVID-19 pandemic: Through the lens of the triple bottom line. Sustainability, 13(17), Article 9634. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13179634
40.
MionG.AdauiC. R. L.BonfantiA.De CrescenzoV. (2023). Mission statements and financial and sustainability performance: An exploratory study of Benefit Corporations certified as B Corps. Journal of Business Research, 157, Article 113585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.113585
41.
O’ConnorA.ShumateM. (2014). Differences among NGOs in the business–NGO Cooperative network. Business & Society, 53(1), 105–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650311418195
42.
O’ConnorA.ShumateM. (2018). A multidimensional network approach to strategic communication. International Journal of Strategic Communication, 12(4), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/1553118X.2018.1452242
43.
PacheA.-C.SantosF. (2013). Inside the hybrid organization: Selective coupling as a response to competing institutional logics. Academy of Management Journal, 56(4), 972–1001. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2011.0405
44.
PhillipsW.LeeH.GhobadianA.O’reganN.JamesP. (2015). Social innovation and social entrepreneurship: A systematic review. Group & Organization Management, 40(3), 428–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601114560063
45.
PinzA.EnglertB.HelmigB. (2024). Organizing logic multiplicity in hybrid organizations: The role of organizational culture. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 35(2), 353–378. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21617
46.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ. Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
47.
RadoynovskaN.RuttanR. (2023). A matter of transition: Authenticity judgments and attracting employees to hybridized organizations. Organization Science, 34(6), 2373–2391. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2021.1495
48.
RamusT.VaccaroA. (2017). Stakeholders matter: How social enterprises address mission drift. Journal of Business Ethics, 143, 307–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-014-2353-y
49.
RamusT.VaccaroA.BerroneP. (2021). Time matters! How hybrid organizations use time to respond to divergent stakeholder demands. Organization Studies, 42(10), 1529–1555. https://doi.org/10.1177/0170840619900341
50.
ReppmannM.MaibaumF.Edinger-SchonsL. M.FoegeJ. N. (2025). Talk, but don’t talk too much: How corporate sustainability communication evokes stepwise organizational change. Journal of Business Research, 189, Article 115188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2025.115188
51.
SætreH. S. (2023). How hybrid organizations respond to institutional complexity: The case of Norway. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 34(5), 990–1001. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-022-00514-2
52.
ShaheenI.AzadeganA.DavisD. F. (2023). Resource scarcity and humanitarian social innovation: Observations from hunger relief in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Business Ethics, 182(3), 597–617. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-021-05014-9
53.
ShumateM.ContractorN. S. (2013). Emergence of multidimensional social networks. In PutnamL. L.MumbyD. K. (Eds.), The Sage handbook of organizational communication (pp. 449–474). Sage.
54.
ShumateM.LippJ. (2008). Connective collective action online: An examination of the hyperlink network structure of an NGO issue network. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 14(1), 178–201. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.01436.x
55.
ShumateM.O’ConnorA. (2010). The symbiotic sustainability model: Conceptualizing NGO–corporate alliance communication. Journal of Communication, 60(3), 577–609. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2010.01498.x
56.
SmithW. K.BesharovM. L. (2019). Bowing before dual gods: How structured flexibility sustains organizational hybridity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 64(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001839217750826
StierS.BreuerJ.SiegersP.ThorsonK. (2020). Integrating survey data and digital trace data: Key issues in developing an emerging field. Social Science Computer Review, 38(5), 503–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319843669
59.
SuY. C. (2020, March23). Social enterprises under the COVID-19 epidemic: 90% of social enterprises were affected, and 40% of social enterprises saw their turnover decrease by more than 26%. Social Enterprise Insights. https://www.seinsights.asia/article/6933
ThorntonP. H.OcasioW.LounsburyM. (2012). The institutional logics perspective: A new approach to culture, structure, and process. Oxford University Press.
62.
WaisbordS. (2023). Hybrid collective action. In PalM.CruzJ.MunshiD. (Eds.), Organizing at the margins: Theorizing organizations of struggle in the Global South (pp. 53–62). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-22993-0_4
63.
WilsonS. R.KuangK.HintzE. A.BuzzanellP. M. (2021). Developing and validating the communication resilience processes scale. Journal of Communication, 71(3), 478–513. https://doi.org/10.1093/joc/jqab013
64.
WinklerA. L. P.BrownJ. A.FinegoldD. L. (2019). Employees as conduits for effective stakeholder engagement: An example from B corporations. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(4), 913–936. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3924-0
65.
WuY. C.WuY. J.WuS. M. (2018). Development and challenges of social enterprises in Taiwan—From the perspective of community development. Sustainability, 10(6), Article 1797. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10061797
66.
YangA.JiY. G. (2019). The quest for legitimacy and the communication of strategic cross-sectoral partnership on Facebook: A big data study. Public Relations Review, 45(5), Article 101839. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101839
67.
YoungD. R.KimC. (2015). Can social enterprises remain sustainable and mission-focused? Applying resiliency theory. Social Enterprise Journal, 11(3), 233–259. https://doi.org/10.1108/SEJ-02-2015-0005
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
